IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p6959-d294881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Sustainability of Technology Licensing Under Asymmetric Information Game

Author

Listed:
  • Chien-Shu Tsai

    (Department of Tourism Management, Kao Yuan University, Kaohsiung 82151, Taiwan)

  • Ting-Chung Tsai

    (Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 82444, Taiwan)

  • Po-Sheng Ko

    (Department of Public Finance and Taxation, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 82444, Taiwan)

  • Chien-Hui Lee

    (Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 82444, Taiwan)

  • Jen-Yao Lee

    (Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung 82444, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Lin Wang

    (Department of Economics, National Chung Cheng University, Minxiong Township, Chiayi County 62102, Taiwan)

Abstract

Past research indicates that a licensor tends to adopt the fixed fee, in order to obtain higher profit rather than secure royalty when he participates in zero production in the market. This study instead finds that the patentee’s optimum strategy may vary. In addition to the fixed-fee strategy, royalty or mixed licensing, or fixed fee plus royalty may be potential choices for the patentee as well which is depend on the market scale, incidence of market scale, and magnitude of cost-saving. The patentee may choose to only authorize a type of high market size based on self-interested motives. The technology licensing market is not sustainable.

Suggested Citation

  • Chien-Shu Tsai & Ting-Chung Tsai & Po-Sheng Ko & Chien-Hui Lee & Jen-Yao Lee & Yu-Lin Wang, 2019. "On the Sustainability of Technology Licensing Under Asymmetric Information Game," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:6959-:d:294881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6959/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/6959/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeong Hee Lee & Eungdo Kim & Tae-Eung Sung & Kwangsoo Shin, 2018. "Factors Affecting Pricing in Patent Licensing Contracts in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Sougata Poddar & Uday Bhanu Sinha, 2010. "Patent Licensing from a High‐Cost Firm to a Low‐Cost Firm," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(274), pages 384-395, September.
    3. Nancy T. Gallini & Ralph A. Winter, 1985. "Licensing in the Theory of Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 237-252, Summer.
    4. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    5. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Tami, 2009. "On the superiority of fixed fee over auction in asymmetric markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 331-333, September.
    6. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    7. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1986. "How to License Intangible Property," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 567-589.
    8. Henry Wang, X., 2002. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a differentiated Cournot duopoly," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 253-266.
    9. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    10. Beggs, A. W., 1992. "The licensing of patents under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 171-191, June.
    11. Heywood, John S. & Li, Jianpei & Ye, Guangliang, 2014. "Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-46.
    12. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    13. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Huaige Zhang & Xuejun Wang & Xianpei Hong & Qiang (Steven) Lu, 2018. "Technology Licensing in a Network Product Market: Fixed†Fee versus Royalty Licensing," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 94(305), pages 168-185, June.
    15. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    16. Chun-Hui Miao, 2013. "On The Superiority Of Fixed Fee Over Auction In Technology Licensing," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 81(3), pages 324-331, June.
    17. Kamien,Morton I. & Schwartz,Nancy L., 1982. "Market Structure and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521293853, December.
    18. Chen, Yi-Wen & Yang, Ya-Po & Wang, Leonard F.S. & Wu, Shih-Jye, 2014. "Technology licensing in mixed oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 193-204.
    19. Kishimoto, Shin & Watanabe, Naoki & Muto, Shigeo, 2011. "Bargaining outcomes in patent licensing: Asymptotic results in a general Cournot market," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 114-123, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    2. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    3. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    4. Zhang, Huaige & Wang, Xuejun & Qing, Ping & Hong, Xianpei, 2016. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in a differentiated Stackelberg duopolistic competition market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 215-229.
    5. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    6. Zhao, Dan, 2017. "Choices and impacts of cross-licensing contracts," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 389-405.
    7. Banerjee, Swapnendu & Poddar, Sougata, 2019. "‘To sell or not to sell’: Licensing versus selling by an outside innovator," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 293-304.
    8. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    9. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.
    10. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2018. "Optimal licensing under incomplete information: the case of the inside patent holder," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 979-1005, December.
    11. Tatsuya Kitagawa & Yasushi Masuda & Masashi Umezawa, 2020. "Impact of technology development costs on licensing form in a differentiated Cournot duopoly," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 16(2), pages 153-166, June.
    12. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    13. Kim, Seung-Leul & Lee, Sang-Ho, 2016. "The licensing of eco-technology under emission taxation: Fixed fee vs. auction," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 343-357.
    14. Yair Tauman & Debrapiya Sen, 2012. "Patents and Licenses," Department of Economics Working Papers 12-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    15. Zhao, Dan & Chen, Hongmin & Hong, Xianpei & Liu, Jingfang, 2014. "Technology licensing contracts with network effects," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 136-144.
    16. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    17. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    18. Hong, Xianpei & Zhou, Menghuan & Gong, Yeming, 2021. "Dilemma of quality information disclosure in technology licensing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 543-557.
    19. Bruno D. Badia, 2019. "Patent Licensing and Technological Catch-Up in a Heterogeneous Duopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 287-300, September.
    20. Ismail Saglam, 2023. "Licensing cost‐reducing innovations under supply function competition," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 180-201, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:6959-:d:294881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.